lars concerning the metaphysical constitution of mankind. The Word of God is the only book on true metaphysics. It was written by God's direction; He knoweth what is in man, and it is a revelation to him of all the characteristics of his mental condition. For man to know himself, he must study the Word of God.

Beasts, the clean and unclean, with fowls, were to be taken into the ark, because the man of the church was then, as he now is, of a mixed character, as to his intellect and will. He has affection for goodness, and thoughts towards truth; he has propensities to evil, and inclinations to falsehood; (God has mercifully provided for the former by the preservation of remains :) and these are the clean and unclean beasts and fowls. By Noah taking them with him into the ark, was represented, man entering into the church with these opposite characteristics in his nature: and the reason assigned for so doing, was, "to keep seed alive upon the earth;" that is, to perpetuate truth in the world. The seed is the truth of the church, of which the Lord is the sower. Some of this seed remained with Noah, for hence it was, that he found grace in the sight of the Lord. All the rest of the posterity of Adam had destroyed this seed in themselves, and were, in consequence, about to perish: the seed of truth is kept alive by use in goodness. Truth lives when it is employed in promoting the works of virtue.

It may appear, from the circumstance of taking in the unclean beasts by pairs, as if the Lord arranged for the perpetuation of what is evil and false, as well as what is good and true; still, every one must see, that this was not intended, because it is contrary to His nature and His providence. It was only SEED that was to be kept alive, and this is predicated of TRUTH as the vessel for the reception of good. It is no part of God's designs to perpetuate man's disorders; but they being inrooted in his nature, he is invited by the Lord to enter with them into the ark, that there they may be weakened and moderated by holy influences, and so be prevented from manifesting themselves, or becoming hurtful to society.

The circumstance of the diversified beasts and fowls, which Noah took with him into the ark, denoting the various affections and thoughts which men take with them on entering into the church of God, is not without a parallel, in predictions which are delivered concerning the Christian church. It is written, that "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the

kid; and the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them: and the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like an ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain." (Isa. xi. 6, 9.) This is universally allowed to be a representation of the peaceable character, which, at some period, is to distinguish the true church. That church is called the Lord's "Holy Mountain;" therein are to be assembled the wolf and the lamb, the leopard and the kid, the calf and the lion, the fatling and the child, the cow and the bear, the asp and the cockatrice. Thus, the clean and the unclean beasts are to be assembled in the holy mountain, and dwell together in peace. There is, then, an obvious parallelism between the clean and unclean beasts to be gathered on the holy mountain, and those which were collected in the saving ark: but, as the prediction of the prophet is not intended to express a physical occurrence, so, neither, is the narrative of Moses. They both refer to spiritual and intellectual phenomena, which take place with man during the process of his regeneration; though this description, in one case, is written in the shape of a figurative history, yet, in the other, it is put forth in the form of a symbolical prediction. The clean beasts and fowls enter into the church, to have their condition preserved and elevated; the unclean are permitted to enter, in order that they may be restrained, and have their ferocity extracted, which purposes are accomplished by those salutary influences which the Lord supplies through the instrumentality of His Word.

CHAPTER XXII.

THE DELUGE, AND THE DEATH OF ALL FLESH BUT THOSE WHO

ENTERED INTO THE ARK.

"The idea of a universal deluge, Mosaic or historical, is not sustainable. Such is the opinion of most of the geologists on the continent. The proofs of its absurdity are so evident, that, for a long time, the Lutheran clergy have given it up. At length, the English clergy, the most tenacious of all, have surrendered their arms. They have at last acknowledged, by the organ of Mr. Sedgwick, and Mr. Conybear, that if there have been deluges, they have not been general; and that the Mosaic deluge, if it ever took place as it is related, could in no case produce the ancient alluvions, or the pretended deluvium."— A. Bone, Mem. Geol. v. i. p 149. Paris, 1832.

WE now er er upon the consideration of one of the most re

CHARACTER OF THE NARRATIVE.

285

markable events mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures. A belief in the literal sense of the Mosaic history of the Deluge, has so long, and so extensively prevailed, that, to question its accuracy, may produce some anxiety and alarm. This, however, must be done, in order to arrive at a correct view of the subject; and the theological prejudices thereon, formed by a misinterpretation of the narrative, must give way to the truths, established by sober criticism, and the discoveries of science. The evidences favorable to this conclusion, are so strong, that Dr. Pye Smith candidly says, “We must admit the probability, that we have not rightly interpreted those portions of the Scriptures." (Geol. and Scriptures, p. 295. Sec. ed.) Other writers of ecclesiastical distinction and scientific celebrity, have arrived at the same conclusion. (Professors Baden Powell, and Adam Sedgwick.) The question does not affect the authenticity or the divinity of the narrative, it is one of interpretation only. The ancient notions upon the subject are thoroughly disturbed, — and disturbed by testimonies of so irresistible a nature, as to compel its relinquishment, by all who have the courage to open their eyes to evidence, and thence to think. It may be useful to advert to a few of the circumstances which have conduced to this result.

What the populace, from the teachings they have received, regard as the orthodox belief, is, that the flood was an overflow of water, by which the whole surface of the earth was submerged; and produced by a breaking up of the fountains of the great deep, and forty days of incessant rain.* The evidences on which these views rest, are supposed to be furnished by the letter of the narrative; and, that the fact itself is corroborated by very numerous traditions, and also substantiated by geological phenomena.

The facts presented in the Mosaic narrative, are these. The Lord said, "I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights. The fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven, were covered fifteen cubits." (Gen. vii. 4, 11, 12, 19, 20.) It is plain, from these statements, whatever may be the sense attached to the deluge, that an idea of some universal

* This view is set forth and defended, in some instances very absurdly, in "An Inquiry into the truth and certainty of the Mosaic Deluge." By Patrick Cockburn, M. A., Vicar of Long Horsley, in Northumberland.

destruction, in reference to man, is intended to be expressed: but whether it was produced by an overflow of water, is another question. It is true, that the narrative so represents it; yet it is equally true, that the Scriptures frequently employ the terms, water and floods, in a purely figurative sense, and this, we think, is the way in which they are used in the instance before us. All who have examined the subject, in a literal sense merely, have been compelled to acknowledge the great difficulties by which it is beset, and to relinquish many notions which were formerly attached to it. It has not been unusual to regard the catastrophe as having been a tumultuous movement of the agitated waves, sweeping along the valleys, with destructive violence,* and majestically rising up the mountain sides, with furious uproar, to overwhelm the wretched beings, who might have fled for safety to their summits. But it must be plain to all, who will calmly examine the narrative, that these are exaggerations of the imagination, having no foundation in the description itself. It does not represent the circumstance, either at its commencement or termination, to have been of so disrupting and earth-disturbing a character as was once vulgarly supposed. The rise and subsidence are spoken of, as having been gradual and quiet; so much so, that the vegetation at the earth's surface, in some districts, was not destroyed by it; at least, an olive leaf is described to have been plucked off, after the tree had been submerged in exceedingly deep waters, for nearly three hundred days! The ark experienced no storm, sustained no injury, but rode with gentleness upon the waters. These circumstances seem to render it unnecessary to appeal to geological phenomena, in proof of the deluge. For why refer to a science which proves such extraordinary convulsions to have taken place with the earth's crust, when the clear inference, from the Mosaic narrative is, that the earth's surface was very little disturbed? Those who appeal to geology to prove the deluge, concede these facts: they even suppose, what they understand to be the geography of the antediluvian world, to have been so little disarranged by the flood, that it is admissive of identification in our own day. They even think, that some of the rivers of Eden, may still be pointed out. (See

* Dr. Buckland sets forth this view in his Reliquiæ Diluvianæ, though he has candidly abandoned it in a note in his Bridgewater Treatise.

+ See Rev. Dr. Fleming, on the Geological Deluge. Edin. Phil. Journ. Vol. xiv. p. 205; and also a paper in the Quarterly Review, Oct. 1827, No. lxxii. n 481.

VIEWS OF THE DELUGE IN A TRANSITION STATE. 287

page 90, note.) While such a view can require no aid for its support, from geological science, it need not fear any difficulties arising from its discoveries. It may be said to be unique, but it is hardly satisfactory.

But the prosecution of geological studies, has shown, with the utmost clearness, that what was once understood to have been diluvial action, is not the result of one universal or simultaneous submergence of the earth, but the consequences of many distinct local watery forces; and produced, not by a gradual inundation of only three hundred and sixty days' duration, but by the continued action of aqueous forces for periods of incalculable extent. Moreover, a recent overflow of water, simultaneously covering the earth, and rising above the summits of the highest mountains, must have left peculiar evidences of such circumstances; such, however, are not to be found, but instead thereof, there are positive facts standing out against it.

Of course, efforts have not been wanting to make the discoveries of science square with the .pre-conceived notions of the narrative; but then, those notions have themselves given way! they have acquired an elasticity, in which their original character has entirely disappeared. There is no uniform opinion upon the subject now extant. The populace, indeed, retain the notion concerning it, which has been taught them in preceding ages: but the learned are not yet sufficiently agreed upon any new explanation, to enter upon the work of undeceiving them. The whole matter is now in a transition state: and we have no doubt, that a time will come, when the narrative will no longer be considered as the literal history of natural phenomena, but a figurative description of the mental condition of mankind, and God's merciful interposition to preserve the human race from perishing by a wicked influence. This, we conceive to be the only view, in which the history can be presented in a rational and satisfactory light. If it was not written to describe an event in outward nature, we need not be surprised at its want of agreement with the discoveries and demands of science.

Although the rising and falling of the waters, seem to have been too tranquil, to allow geological phenomena to be referred to their action, still it may be asked, whether the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep, may not have occasioned those irregularities and divergencies of the strata from that horizontal position which they must have originally possessed, and which are now